davieG

National League South side Eastbourne Borough have this evening posted this statement after this 7-0 thrashing away at Torquay United The 45 travelling supporters will have their match tickets reimbursed by the players as ordered by the club

Stoke City should have given Leicester 'bloody nose' says Mark Robins Link to the article in the comment Stoke Sentinel Well they tried to literally do that and the ref let them.

I've always said the refs are the biggest time wasters. I also don't understand why you can't take a quick freekick when you're within shooting distance of the goal. If the field is not set properly that's up to the defence to move quickly and if it fails then tough on the freekick taker.

Another fine ref

4 times Ricardo

Can we skip this one please?

But when the club does not listen to reasonable suggestions then what do you suggest the response should be? As for welcoming new members when have you ever pursued that and the £10/yr membership is totally unjustified considering you've hardly used any of it to benefit the members. As an early member of the FT I could see nothing happening to warrant me to continue to renew.

I think it was also about the time when building roads especially through populated areas became unfashionable and unacceptable certainly the section through the top of London through Oadby/Evington was put on hold and then cancelled completely due to local pressure groups.

Aye - A few empty seats is the best and only way to accommodate those fans who can't say until the day of the match or even an hour or so before KO that they are free to go. The club could then easily set up the ability to buy tickets online on the day of the match to registered fans.

Leicester City Fc The Memories & Reborn Now And Then & Forever · Follow Saturday, 15th March 1969 Score: Leicester City 0 Stoke City 0 Competition: League Division One Venue: Filbert Street Attendance: 24,987 LEICESTER CITY STARTING LINEUP: Peter Shilton David Nish Peter Rodrigues John Sjoberg Graham Cross Bobby Roberts Allan Clarke Rod Fern Andy Lochhead Dave Gibson Len Glover Comment Mick Bucknall Back. FERN SJOBERG CROSS CLARKE Middle. SHILTON WOOLETT ROBERTS GIBSON STRINGFELLOW. Front. MANLEY RODRIGUES NISH GLOVER LOCHHEAD.

Hidden Leicester · Graham Hulme An old postcard view of London Road c. 1950s. The large building seen beyond the railway station on the right was the Wyvern Building which was built to the designs of the Leicester architect Arthur Wakerley around 1895. The building originally housed the Wyvern Hotel, a temperance hotel, with shops on the ground floor, and was designed to match the new London Road Midland Station next to it. The station was built in 1892-94, designed by the Midland Railway architect Charles Trubshaw, and replaced the old Campbell Street station which had opened in 1840. The Wyvern Building was constructed on the site of St Stephen's Presbyterian Church which was taken down in 1893 and rebuilt on New Walk. The Wyvern Hotel closed in 1933 and the building was subsequently occupied by Shell-Mex-BP. Later it became offices for British Road Services. The building was demolished in the mid 1970s and the Elizabeth House tower block was built on the site. On the left of the picture can be seen the old Leicester Evening Mail newspaper office, a fine Art Deco building designed in 1932 by the Leicester architect Shirley Harrison, of the firm Stockdale Harrison & Sons. Shirley Harrison also designed De Montfort Hall. The Evening Mail had been founded in 1910 and was originally based in Belvoir Street, moving to London Road in 1926. The newspaper ceased publication in 1963. The building was demolished in the 1970s.

Premier League clubs to be banned from selling assets to themselves Image source,Getty Images Image caption, Chelsea sold two hotels next to Stamford Bridge to a sister company for £76.5m in April 2024 By Dale Johnson Football issues correspondent Published 21 November 2025, 12:43 GMT 559 Comments Updated 1 hour ago Premier League clubs will no longer be able to sell assets like hotels and women's teams to themselves from next season to get round new financial rules. It comes after clubs narrowly voted through a new system of Financial Fair Play (FFP) based on squad costs on Friday. The clubs met in London to vote on three possible methods of replacing Profit and Sustainability Rules (PSR). Squad Cost Ratio (SCR) got 14 votes in favour and six against, which is the minimum number that is required to exact a rule change. Overall squad costs from the 2026-27 campaign will have to be limited to 85% of a club's revenue, although teams competing in Europe will have to adhere to Uefa's maximum of 70%. Squad costs comprise player and manager wages, transfer fees and agents' fees. Most notably it will end the loophole of selling capital assets, like hotels and women's teams. Last year Chelsea sold two hotels to a sister company to keep them compliant with PSR. In July, Everton sold their women's team to the parent company, while reports claim Aston Villa have agreed to do the same. The assessment will only be based on a club's total earnings from football operations. Rules around sustainability, which set out a club's financial spending plans over the medium and long term, were passed unanimously. But anchoring, which would have placed a top limit on spending based on the money earned by the bottom club, failed to get the necessary support. Twelve voted against it, with seven in favour and one abstaining. "The new SCR rules are intended to promote opportunity for all clubs to aspire to greater success and bring the league's financial system close to Uefa's existing SCR rules," a Premier League statement read. "The other key features of the league's new system include transparent in-season monitoring and sanctions, protection against sporting underperformance, an ability to spend ahead of revenues, strengthened ability to invest off the pitch, and a reduction in complexity by focusing on football costs." What is Squad Cost Ratio and how will it affect clubs? PSR was about a club's balance sheet of all revenues over a three-year period, while SCR is just about team costs on a seasonal basis. The new rules will operate a dual system, with clubs in European competition having to adhere to Uefa's SCR limit of 70% - so a club could be sanctioned by Uefa but be compliant in the Premier League. The higher limit is intended to protect the Premier League's competitive balance, given the increased income that will be received by those clubs competing in Europe. Chelsea and Aston Villa were both given heavy fines by Uefa for breaches in the 2024-25 campaign, and that is when the limit in Europe was 80%. The Premier League has added some wriggle room, too, with a multi-year rolling allowance of 30% that permits clubs to spend beyond the limit. It allows clubs to invest ahead of revenue and variance or sporting underperformance. An assessment is made each March, and the allowance is crucial to determine possible sporting sanctions applied in the same season. The 85% marker is known as the Green Threshold. Spend above that and you get a financial penalty, although this will be far less punitive than Uefa. The Red Threshold is 85% plus the allowance. Go beyond that, and it is a fixed six-point deduction which increases by one point for every £6.5m spent over the Red Threshold. Think of it this way - every club will start next season on 85% + 30% allowance, so effectively 115%. Any clubs that spend above 85% will face a fine, but they would need to be in excess of 115% lose points. But those percentages will change for 2027-28. If a club spends 105% on their squad next season, it means they have used 20% of their allowance, and for 2027-28 their maximum spend before potential sporting sanction is 95%. If a club spend less that 85%, they can increase the allowance again to the maximum of 30%. Which clubs will be affected? Several clubs, in healthy financial positions, were happy with PSR and wanted to keep the status quo. SCR will not worry the biggest clubs with the best commercial operations. But linking the wage bill to income is not attractive to clubs with less financial resources. That is why Bournemouth, Brentford, Brighton, Crystal Palace, Fulham and Leeds voted against. Bournemouth's ground holds just over 11,000 but they need to pay Premier League wages so could be one of the losers, and it is a similar situation for Fulham. Savvy transfer business will be crucial for these clubs, as Bournemouth would be in no trouble this season because of their transfer business last summer. But 85%, with the additional 30% buffer, gives every club some headroom, and time to adapt. Aston Villa and Newcastle were among the clubs annoyed with the restrictions PSR imposed on their ability to spend on the squad. But they cannot get too excited about the move to SCR, as they have to operate to 70% as a club in Uefa competition. Why was anchoring voted down? With only seven votes in favour it was not close to being a viable option - but the top clubs were split over it. Manchester City and Manchester United feared they could eventually breach the anchoring limit as their revenues grow, but Arsenal and Liverpool voted in favour of it. Top-to-bottom anchoring (TBA) limits the total spending to five times the TV payments received from the Premier League by its bottom club. This season it is expected that the team that finishes 20th will earn about £120m, which would create an upper anchoring limit of £600m. But once the SCR rules are applied no club's spending limit would reach £600m. It was intended to stop the spending of the top clubs increasingly outstripping everyone else as their revenues grow. But some feared the cap could eventually impact their ability to compete for players with the likes of Real Madrid. The Professional Footballers' Association (PFA), meanwhile, had previously warned that clubs would spend less on player salaries, effectively creating a wage cap which could face legal action. There were also fears that a reduction in future broadcasting deals would effectively result in a lower cap. Why were sustainability rules passed so easily? This was a simple one for the Premier League clubs, because they are already going to have to produce financial projections over the short, medium and long-term. That will be a requirement of the Independent Football Regulator (IFR), which will begin its work later this season. Clubs will have to give projections about their financial planning and their ability to fund the running of the club. The focus is on monitoring and the imposition of measures that return a club to compliance for any breach. So, that would be something like a spending restriction or debt rebalancing.

when they find there aren't enough students to fill it as both Unis are cutting back on their courses they'll find a way to let them to the general public even though they don't meet the building standards. I'm sure they'll be happy with that.

Jobs Worth or That's how it is. Uefa orders Scotland fans to remove celebration videos from X Scotland fans have criticised Uefa after videos of supporters celebrating their team qualifying for the World Cup were removed from social media. The Scottish Football Supporters Association (SFSA) received emails from the European football governing body stating it had shared footage showing TV coverage of the Scotland v Denmark game on X without permission. Posts shared by the SFSA showed fans across the country celebrating Tuesday night's match, where Scotland secured a spot at the World Cup for the first time since 1998. Many of the videos have been taken down due to copyright infringement and the SFSA's account was blocked. SFSA co-founder Paul Goodwin questioned the fairness of the claim. He said: "It is hard to believe that Uefa are so out of touch that they demanded that X take down images of joyous fans in bars in Glasgow, Stirling and Dundee where some of our members were celebrating a glorious evening for the nation. "It really smacks of folk who have no idea about football, making decisions." Scotland fans start planning World Cup party after Hampden rollercoaster Tuesday's match was free-to-air on BBC Scotland and BBC Two. Rights differ elsewhere. One of the videos removed showed a packed pub in Inverurie erupt when Scott McTominay scored with an overhead bicycle kick three minutes into the game. Mr Goodwin added: "Yes, the game was on in the background but these clips were of fans watching the game that were legally being watched on the BBC and were an average of 40 seconds long. "So its hardly us streaming a game to a worldwide audience." The group received emails from lawyers on behalf of Uefa after posts had been flagged for breaching Uefa rules on match footage. Mr Goodwin said he was "shocked" when the videos were deleted and the group's account was blocked. "Our message to Uefa is maybe best summed up in the chant often directed to match officials, 'you don't know what you are doing'," he added. Intellectual property rights Scotland qualified for their first World Cup since 1998 with a memorable 4-2 win over Denmark at Hampden. Goals from Scott McTominay, Lawrence Shankland, Kieran Tierney and Kenny McLean secured Scotland's place at the 2026 World Cup in the USA, Canada and Mexico. As well as fan reactions, video edits of the goals, particularly McTominay's bicycle kick, have been widely shared on social media sites, including X as well as Instagram and TikTok. Uefa frequently removes YouTube videos due to strict copyright enforcement. The governing body for European football owns the broadcast rights to its matches and generally restricts the uploading of match footage by unofficial channels and fans. According to Uefa rules, the governing body "is the exclusive owner of all intellectual property rights of the competition, including any current or future rights in all types of audio and visual material of the competition". Uefa has been approached for comment.

Made In Leicester Rob Hubble Leicester Market 1950s.

Never mind we have this to look forward too right next to - "Speaking against the plans at the meeting, Councillor Patrick Kitterick said: "I think the thing that strikes me is just the sheer lack of architectural ambition here [...] And if you think that this is really the jewel box of Leicester's heritage, we have Jewry Wall, we have the beautifully redressed Pex building, Mary de Castro Church, Saint Nicholas Church, Castle Gardens, West Bridge, and then we have this". 'Uninspiring' flats on Brucciani's site approved despite concerns about what could be underneath More than 100 flats could be built - unless they find something on the land News Tess Rushin Local Democracy Reporter 11:31, 21 Nov 2025 Student flats will be built on the former Brucciani's bakery site in Leicester after plans were approved. Applicant Mr Mandeep Dhadwar is behind the plans for the development in St Nicholas Circle. The former bakery and neighbouring buildings will be flattened to make way for the project. The planned building will be four to seven storeys high. 125 student bedrooms are planned through a combination of 102 studios, a three-bed shared flat and five four-bed shared flats. The proposals include 5 car parking spaces, including one disability space. Officers at the city council recommended the development for approval at the planning committee meeting held on Wednesday, November 19, subject to 21 conditions. These included a requirement that no development is undertaken until an archaeological investigation has taken place. Speaking against the plans at the meeting, Councillor Patrick Kitterick said: "I think the thing that strikes me is just the sheer lack of architectural ambition here [...] And if you think that this is really the jewel box of Leicester's heritage, we have Jewry Wall, we have the beautifully redressed Pex building, Mary de Castro Church, Saint Nicholas Church, Castle Gardens, West Bridge, and then we have this. "And it is, it is just so uninspiring [...] If we find ourselves driving or walking or cycling past this in five or 10 years' time, that we sat on the committee and we said this was good enough for this particular location [...] I regret the loss of the Brucciani bakery. It's part of the history of the area, it tells about the development across time". Concerns were previously raised by Historic England over potential harm that could be caused to Leicester's historic fabric. The advisory body said there is a "high chance" that the site boasts a "rich and complex" selection of prehistoric, medieval, and Roman-era remains beneath the buildings currently occupying it. There could be remains of "equivalent importance" to a scheduled monument – an archaeological site deemed nationally important – surviving under the surface, Historic England believes. This is of particular importance as the land is next to Leicester's Jewry Wall, a Roman bathhouse. https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/uninspiring-flats-bruccianis-site-approved-10659003

'Uninspiring' flats on Brucciani's site approved despite concerns about what could be underneath More than 100 flats could be built - unless they find something on the land News Tess Rushin Local Democracy Reporter 11:31, 21 Nov 2025 Student flats will be built on the former Brucciani's bakery site in Leicester after plans were approved. Applicant Mr Mandeep Dhadwar is behind the plans for the development in St Nicholas Circle. The former bakery and neighbouring buildings will be flattened to make way for the project. The planned building will be four to seven storeys high. 125 student bedrooms are planned through a combination of 102 studios, a three-bed shared flat and five four-bed shared flats. The proposals include 5 car parking spaces, including one disability space. Officers at the city council recommended the development for approval at the planning committee meeting held on Wednesday, November 19, subject to 21 conditions. These included a requirement that no development is undertaken until an archaeological investigation has taken place. Speaking against the plans at the meeting, Councillor Patrick Kitterick said: "I think the thing that strikes me is just the sheer lack of architectural ambition here [...] And if you think that this is really the jewel box of Leicester's heritage, we have Jewry Wall, we have the beautifully redressed Pex building, Mary de Castro Church, Saint Nicholas Church, Castle Gardens, West Bridge, and then we have this. "And it is, it is just so uninspiring [...] If we find ourselves driving or walking or cycling past this in five or 10 years' time, that we sat on the committee and we said this was good enough for this particular location [...] I regret the loss of the Brucciani bakery. It's part of the history of the area, it tells about the development across time". Concerns were previously raised by Historic England over potential harm that could be caused to Leicester's historic fabric. The advisory body said there is a "high chance" that the site boasts a "rich and complex" selection of prehistoric, medieval, and Roman-era remains beneath the buildings currently occupying it. There could be remains of "equivalent importance" to a scheduled monument – an archaeological site deemed nationally important – surviving under the surface, Historic England believes. This is of particular importance as the land is next to Leicester's Jewry Wall, a Roman bathhouse. https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/uninspiring-flats-bruccianis-site-approved-10659003

Just found out this is on TNT another two fingers up to the fans.

Probably play Hamza at CB

I thought the slave trade was long gone Shame on you!

On my walks to the shops I have to cross several roads with traffic lights and I often see single drivers smoking, with the occasional one tossing their fag end out of the window. Then of course there's those that decide to clean their car out whilst waiting and dumping a few weeks worth of rubbish into the gutter.

Carburettors smoking